He started this campaign basically with his convictions and a shoestring. He got amazingly far, all things considered. He came within a few points of dealing Romney a grievous blow in Michigan and upending the race. But he never had the money and organization to compete with Romney–and those things matter. Despite his working-class pitch, he was never able to extend his reach enough beyond his evangelical base. At times his message was compelling and fresh, but by the end it seemed to boil down to a critique of Romneycare (and increasingly over-the-top attacks on Romney). The downside to his passion and sincerity was a lack of discipline and a weakness for bluster. For all those reasons, he couldn’t catch Romney. But Santorum is a man of principle who lives his convictions and is never afraid to defend them. He believes deeply in the American idea. That he was able to do so well based almost entirely on off-the-cuff remarks throughout the campaign is a testament to his experience and his knowledge of the issues. He takes politics seriously. His argument that the breakdown in the family is undermining economic mobility and the America dream is important and too-often neglected. Finally, he had the grace to know when to bow out. Altogether, he should exit with his head held high. He came up short, but he was in the arena and fought valiantly.

It's only now with the internet we realize that every news program, from its selected content to its presentation style, is but a form of reality based 'creative fictional art' that projects its creator's value judgments. The internet gives us the means to reconstruct facts from multiple projected perspectives.

I have made no secret of the fact that I have supported Rick Santorum in these primary races, so today was a very sad day for me. Yet, beginning today, I will be supporting Mitt Romney in his race against Barack Obama, and intend to write and speak locally to that effect, and wear out some shoe leather going door-to-door as November approaches.

With that said, I have one major complaint regarding one of the Romney campaign focuses: Rick Santorum’s defeat in his bid for re-election to the senate in 2006.

I live in Pennsylvania, and I have received probably a dozen robo-calls from the Romney campaign over the past week alone, almost all of which have focused on Santorum’s national ‘electability’ since his defeat here in Pennsylvania back in 2006.

To me, using that tactic against him on the part of Republicans serves no purpose other than to allow a second sleezy victory for the DNC.

2006 was an historically bad year for Republicans – the worst since the Great Depression – as they lost control of both houses of Congress. And 2006 was the worst election year for republicans in the history of the state of Pennsylvania. In 2006 Rick Santorum was rated the most conservative senator in the senate by the American Conservative Union. For that reason alone, the DNC poured a record amount of money into the state in their attempt to defeat him. Their advertisements included blatant lies and exaggerations of the truth, and many believe that they were the main reason for Rick’s resounding defeat. He did not have the manpower, or the money, to compete with the national democratic machine.

Add to that the fact that most Pennsylvania republicans did not yet understand Rick’s reasons for endorsing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey two years earlier (reasons that came out later when Specter revealed that he had promised Santorum that he would see to it that any Bush Supreme Court nominee would be confirmed – which may have played a large role in the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito). Many conservatives – quite a few of whom I knew personally -- not yet being aware of Rick’s motives in endorsing Specter, took their anger to the polls with them in 2006.

Add to that the fact that Rick was running against the namesake of the most popular governor in half a century, and a (supposed) pro-lifer to boot, which took away Rick’s advantage with the single-issue pro-life voters. Exit polls also showed that a measurable percentage of uninformed (understatement of the century) democrats also believed they were voting for Robert Casey, Jr.'s father -- the extraordinarily popular former governor -- once again.

But of all of the factors working against him in 2006, the most powerful and disingenuous one was the tens of millions that were poured into his opponent’s coffers by the national DNC in their efforts to unseat the most conservative senator in Washington. Money is power, and it’s hard, if not impossible, to run against such power, and such lies that blanketed our television screens for a solid two weeks before the election.

For that reason, the robo-calls that have recently been made portraying Santorum as a has-been unelectable, and the new advertisement that was to begin airing this week, focusing solely on his 2006 defeat as a reason not to vote for him now leaves an incredibly bad taste in my mouth, since it represents a second victory for the DNC’s underhanded tactics of six years ago – a republican using the results of those despicable tactics to his advantage six years later.

With that said (and said for the last time), I hope that Rick Santorum remains a strong voice for conservatism on the national scene, and that he has a powerful say in the party platform in Tampa. It is time for all republicans, and all conservatives, to fall in line behind our nominee and do all that is within our power to see to it that Barack Obama is not elected to a second term.

That is no minor challenge. The broad ignorance of many in the electorate brought on by their willingness to swallow whole the propaganda that passes for ‘news’ among the mainstream media, the financial backing that the Obama machine will have at its disposal (including a promised $400 million from unions alone), and the massive voter fraud that is already in the works by a reconstituted ACORN and their ilk, are all going to make this a very difficult election to win. But the stakes are so high as to make losing not an option. The very survival of America as a free republic hangs in the balance.

<< Martin's killing as the unarmed, black 17-year-old was walking back from a convenience store Feb. 26 has touched off protests around the country and stirred a debate over racial profiling and self-defense that has reached all the way to the White House. Zimmerman's father is white, and his mother is Hispanic. >>

That's a blatant lie. It was the false, made-up, and biased media coverage after the event that got everyone all stirred up. Then Sharpton & Jackson INC saw an opportunity for some face time, and the chance to run a shakedown, and what do you know? Instant crisis !

If the media had reported truthfully from the start, things wouldn't be anywhere near as agitated as they are now.

In an April 4th New York Times op ed article, Tom Friedman endorsed what he designated to be “non-violent resistance by Palestinians” against Israel. He added that Palestinians need to “accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a detailed map” delineating their territorial demands.

Friedman, I’m sorry to say, is allowing himself to be used by radicals whose goal is not peace but the destruction of Israel. Two prior prime ministers of Israel, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, offered the Palestinian Authority a return of all but between 7 and 9 percent of the West Bank. That area would bring into the State of Israel most of the 300,000 Israeli Jews living on the West Bank, referred to by Israelis by the biblical names of Judean and Sumaria. The 7 to 9 percent would then be replaced by land swaps. Those offers from Israel were turned down by the Palestinian Authority. In “Foreign Affairs,” of August 2011, Eliot Abrams wrote, “At Camp David in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat 94 percent of the West Bank; ten years later, Ehud Olmert offered Abbas 93.6 percent with a one-to-one land swap.” The Palestinian Authority has refused to return to high-level peace negotiations for the last year and a half unless Israel agrees to its preconditions which include a settlement freeze on all construction of Jewish homes in the West Bank and Jerusalem and a stipulation that negotiations proceed from what Israel believes are indefensible pre-1967 borders.

The Palestinian state called for under the two-state solution -- which has been accepted by the current prime minister Bibi Netanyahu and his immediate predecessors -- also includes Gaza. Under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the latter territory was totally evacuated by the Israelis. Since that evacuation in 2005 and after an election won by Hamas, the Palestinians in Gaza under Hamas have continued their war against the Jews. Recently, in one day, Hamas sent 150 rockets into southern Israel, disrupting the economy of the area and endangering its population. The rockets are simply sent in the general direction of cities and towns with their civilian populations as the targets.

The supporters of the Palestinian Authority and its two components, Hamas and Fatah, hold Israel to blame for the lack of progress in peace talks. They are furious that Israel refuses to cede more territory under these conditions and thereby commit suicide in pursuit of an illusory peace. Supporters of the Palestinian Authority include Jews in Israel itself and here in the U.S. However, it is rare that any Jewish supporters of the Palestinian Authority would urge the Palestinians to resume violence against the Jews of Israel. It therefore came as a shock to read in Tom Friedman’s op ed that he endorses the resumption of rock throwing against Israelis.

Friedman’s article was itself, in effect, a rock thrown directly at Israel and the peace process. I caution Friedman not to recommend violence lightly. Having been a victim in 1991 of rocks thrown by Palestinians in the first Intifada – an injury requiring 9 stitches to suture my scalp where it was struck by a stone -- I couldn’t help but wonder: how would Tom Friedman feel if a child in Israel were to be struck by a stone, perhaps losing an eye or worse? Would Friedman blame himself for having encouraged the Arabs on the West Bank to hurl stones in what he describes as a “non-violent” measure?

I thank the Times for publishing my letter to the editor denouncing Friedman for including stone throwing as a “non-violent” tactic. I also wonder why the Times editorially has not denounced or chastised his behavior, so as to reassure its readers it does not agree with their premier pundit on the Middle East. Friedman welcomed the Arab Spring which in Egypt and elsewhere has produced governments that are now dominated by Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that support the use of terrorism. Friedman is fast becoming the darling of Islamist terrorists everywhere. Friedman did not provide his opinion on whether Israeli soldiers or police officers might defend themselves from a rock assault by shooting the person engaged in throwing rocks at him to deter injury to himself or others. My letter published by the Times follows:

April 6, 2012

Rock Throwing by Arabs

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman (“A Middle East Twofer,” column, April 4) endorses what he calls “nonviolent resistance by Palestinians” against Israel. He adds that Palestinians need to “accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a detailed map” delineating their territorial demands. I was attacked by “nonviolent” Arab rock throwers while touring the old Jewish quarter of Jerusalem in 1991. I needed nine stitches but was fortunate to have suffered only relatively minor injuries. If my attackers’ aim had been a little sharper, I could have lost an eye, or worse. Many Israelis as well as foreign tourists have been badly injured, sometimes permanently maimed, in such “nonviolent” assaults. Israelis have even been murdered by rock throwing. Last September, Asher Palmer, 25, and his infant son, Yonatan, were killed when “nonviolent” rocks were thrown at their car, causing a fatal crash. We may disagree on borders, settlements, refugees or other contentious Arab-Israeli issues. But can’t we all agree that in the English language, the terms “nonviolent” and “rock throwing” are mutually exclusive?

Although many members of the media downplayed the controversial aspects of Barack Obama's connection to the radical Jeremiah Wright, MSNBC on Tuesday began to investigate the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney and "its particular attitudes towards race."

Host Andrea Mitchell highlighted McKay Coppins of the liberal Buzz Feed. She quizzed her guest: "What challenges do you see for Mitt Romney as more and more questions will be asked along the way about his faith and its particular attitudes towards race?"

Coppins, who himself is a Mormon, wrote a piece on Romney's religion for Buzz Feed. He highlighted the fact that, until 1978, the Mormon church did not allow African Americans into the priesthood.

The journalist hinted, "...An increasing number of voices in the black community, are saying that Mitt Romney needs to speak out and condemn this because he was alive when these things were still being taught to him."

In his piece, Coppins cited a number of MSNBC regulars, including Marc Lamont Hill and Joy Ann Reid:

MSNBC analyst and Miami Herald columnist Joy Ann Reid — a prominent voice on race issues in a crucial swing state — said Romney deserves to be challenged on his church's past.

"I think if he were a child when anti-black policies were in place, that would be different," said Reid. "But he was an adult, active in the ministry of his church, and it's fair to ask, if the media cares to — and they should — what he thought of those policies at the time. The question is very much legitimate."

In 2012, look for the same journalists who, just four years ago, defended and dismissed questions about Barack Obama's church, to investigate Romney's faith.

A transcript of the April 10 segment, which aired at 1:43pm EDT, follows:

ANDREA MITCHELL: The November election bound to make history in at least one way, if, indeed, Mitt Romney, the nation's first Mormon nominee is on the ballot against the nation's first black American president. McKay Coppins is a reporter with Buzz Feed and has written extensively about the complexities of that scenario. And I should point out, because it is relevant, you are a Mormon yourself, member of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

MCKAY COPPINS: I am.

MITCHELL: So, you come with a particular understanding of what the book of Mormon really reveals to us about the issue of race. It's a complex issue.

COPPINS: It is. Absolutely.

MITCHELL: What challenges do you see for Mitt Romney as more and more questions will be asked along the way about his faith and its particular attitudes towards race?

COPPINS: Yeah, well, the Mormon church for most of its history did not allow black men into the priesthood. That ban was lifted in 1978, but the church struggles with the legacy of discriminatory policies. There are also verses in Mormon scripture that teach that dark skin is a curse from an angry god and Mormon leaders used to teach that black people were less valiant or less righteous in a pre-mortal life. Now, none of these things are widely believed anymore in the church, but as I wrote at Buzz Feed an increasing number of voices in the black community, are saying that Mitt Romney needs to speak out and condemn this because he was alive when these things were still being taught to him.

MITCHELL: Let's take a look, also- Buzz Feed dipped down into the files and came up with these pictures. This is a very young Mitt Romney when his wife- when his wife- excuse me- when his mom Lenore was running for the United States Senate. It quite striking to see him, of course we've seen pictures of him with his sons but he- this was in the period when he was traveling and actually doing mission work for the church.

COPPINS: Yeah. This is an interesting clip. It's fascinating. For one thing, because you can see you know the political ideology that he was raised with, which was really pretty centrist and independent. He had two parents who bucked the Republican Party on issues like abortion rights and civil rights, and he was kind of raised to believe that, you know, you shouldn't always tow the party line. Obviously in the Republican primary this time around, we haven't seen much of that Mitt Romney and it will be interesting to see, going into the general election, whether he'll be able to pivot back to being kind of that independent centrist that his father was.

MITCHELL: McKay, help me with this. In the church, is there- is there an attempt at various stages to walk away from some of these more controversial, racial imperatives? I mean, is there something that would be the akin to what we understand to be an encyclical, where the Vatican, for instance, steps away from some of its past teachings regarding Jews?

COPPINS: Oh, absolutely. This presidential cycle in particular has been the catalyst for a couple of kind of definitive moments where the church has backed away from past stances, notably, recently, a BYU professor, Brigham Young University professor, gave voice to some of these old, sort of, racist teachings, and the church came out with an unusually strongly worded statement condemning them, saying these do not represent what this church believes, this doesn't represent our view on race and that was the definitive moment where the church kind of drew a line and said, you know, we're not going to be cast this way anymore, and we're backing away from these old teachings and these folk doctrines.

It begins. Note that none of the Republican candidates brought this up in regard to Mr Electable. He will be asked questions about this in the future ... it may come up in future debates. Will Mitt issue an apology, publicly renounce verses that call dark skin a curse? He might. But it will be an admission of membership in a racist church and won't help.